About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
challenges of the defense budget because this program is in some way singular some way singular in terms of its cost overrides, its delays and the way it's been structured to as i write in the peace it's most effective defense of attribute may not be all of its radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and ability to fly it synthesized speech. it might well be the way it was designed to avoid budget cutters in washington. >> now a hearing on the justice department's 2014 budget request. attorney general eric holder testified before how supra-patient subcommittee for a little more than two hours. be attorney general holder we welcome you to the committee and thank you for appearing. i'm going to hold my questions until the very end because members have to catch planes and go out of town but i will have an opening statement to cover questions and concerns that i have. let me address the bombing attack at the boston marathon on monday. we know the fbi and the joint terrorist task force batf and its forensic specialists in all the federal state and local authorities are working
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
. is also a number of the defense policy advisory board. and so he goes over to iraq. he's the only member of this board that goes their indices it's a disaster. there's an insurgency mounted and nobody knows what to do about it. now, he comes back feeling really upset because, feeling pangs of guilt because he was advising this administration. he had advocated for this war. his son had recently joined the army and is going to be sent to iran. -- iraq tickets can be said to dismiss. that he sort of help create. so he thinks, well, he has to do something about this. so he sets up a similar in vermont and he goes through his rolodex answer is military journal but he invites everybody to be confined who has written anything remotely interesting about the subject of water. and he comes up with about 30. and they all assembled for five days to discuss these things. the pivotal think about this meeting is not so much what they discussed as that they met. most of these people didn't know each other before. they didn't know of one another's existence. they thought they were out on a limb, here, on
for self-defense and for hunting and for sportsman activities. target shooting. i still go target shooting basically out my backyard in searchlight with my grandchildren. but i've always had trouble understanding why people need assault weapons to hunt or protect their homes or to target shoot. when the assault weapons ban came before the senate for a vote ten years ago, i called my friends, one in particular, who is a real advocate with -- on guns. and he said to me, you can't define an assault weapon. why are you doing this? you can't define an assault weapon. he convinced me he was right, so i voted against that. i voted against the ban. just about a month ago i called this same friend. i asked if his opinion had changed. generally no, but specifically yes, it had changed. he still opposes a ban on assault weapons. i said tell me why. i found his new reasoning absurd. and even though i care a great deal about my friend, he's headed in the wrong direction. so it caused me to reassess my position. he said do police have assault weapons? i said, yeah, some of them. he said if they have the
with the department of defense and others to address last year the department of treasury to qualify that as a hardship from the hamp program. you're racing another great exam how there can be a general consumer problem, the issue of tenants who are renting who can be affected by some of these problems that -- great example is when congress dealt with the fact that tenants can be ousted from their place they're living because the landlord is foreclosed upon even though the tenant may not know anything about that and they fine their belongings on the street. for the military, again, this particular instance has to do -- can do with change of station ordered or can do with, as you say, trying to improve your housing for lesser cost. so, if congress is going to lock that issue, we'd be happy to supply the experience that we have seen from around the country. that of, of course, a judgment for you all to make but it's another outstanding example how you can have general consumer issues ask then translate them into the military context but they are sharpened or aggravated the the situatio
challenges in trimming the defense budget has this program is in some ways singular in terms of its cost overrides, it's delays in the way it's been structured to as a right and a piece, it's most effective defense advocate will not be all of its radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and ability to fly at superfast. it may be the way it's designed to avoid coverage in washington. >> german finance minister wolfgang schauble was in washingtwashingt on today. he said he expects the european economy to begin improving in 2014 lead at a slower rate than the united states in developing nations. mr. schauble is attending the g20 finance ministry meetings. from the council on foreign relations, this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> be careful. >> ladies and gentlemen i am carla hills. i'm cochair of the council on foreign relations and we are privileged indeed to have with us the honorable wolfgang schauble, a highly experienced german government official who is currently serving as minister of finance. you have his resume and we are running late so to maximize their t
/11 attack in productions for the cia defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. the most important decision may have been to declare the geneva convention did not apply to al qaeda and taliban captives in afghanistan or guantanamo. the administration never specified what rules would have applied instead. the task force believes that u.s. defense intelligence professionals and service members in harm's way of the clear orders on the treatment of detainees requiring at a minimum compliance with, and article 3 as the geneva convention to be the this was not done. civilian leaders and military commanders have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that their subordinates comply with all of the war. president obama has committed to observe the conventions through an executive order but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pen. congress, our recommendation needs to work with the administration to strengthen the torture statute, the war crimes act and the uniform code of military justice to remove the loopholes that allow the torture to occ
without using components made by potential adversaries, and i gave a talk at national defense university in washington three years ago, and they said, yeah, we kind of know that, but the defense contractors control congress, and nobody cares. okay, i'm not a defense guy. i'm talking to military officers. you guys worry about it. now, if you don't mind the idea of the u.s. being dependent for its defense on a hostile deck at a timer ship, go ahead. t somebody else about it, but that's part of free trade. other nations manage this stuff. the u.s. historically prior to the end of the cold war had controls on this stuff because we understood that you need descril base, not just for economic reasons, but also for security. now, interestingly enough, this ties back into american history because i mentioned al exapedder hamilton before. one of the reasons that he became a protectionist, and he was the lone economist among the founding fathers, the guy who turned this country in that direction. he talked to general washington and said, look, if we just have free trade in the new country pee put
in afghanistan. our diplomatic our defense contractors now have to go and hide their worship behind a walled compound. afghanistan, while the surge was going on, over 100,000 american troops on the ground, joined saudi arabia as the only other country in the world that became so intolerant they did not have a single church. the obama administration knew about it and actually reported about in the state department religious freedom, which is still the gold standard for human rights reporting. but at the time it was happening they said nothing and did nothing. so on our watch this has happened. the bush administration, two-thirds of the christians in iraq were driven out. we have it in the book about conversations we had about secretary rice at the time saying please protecting. again, we had 100,000 troops on thground and she said no, we cannot get involved. it's sectarian here. meanwhile, the united states had just installed a shiite government in iraq and was negotiating on the path of sunni leaders to get sunni appointments in the government. so it just rang true. >> it does seem as i list
, it will worsen dramatically and be far more costly . the defense department has studied potential threats to national security posed by climate change . d.o.d.'s 2010 quad perennial defense review -- quadrennial defense review states climate change may act as an accelerant for instability and that in turn would place burdens on civilian institutions and militaries around the world . the top commander in the pacific, admiral samuel locklear, said the biggest long-term security challenge in the pacific is the climate change . as the pacific commander, he understands the impact that sea level rise and extreme weather events can have on our military resources and on civilian populations in the pacific . my constituents in minnesota also understand that the threat of climate change . that's why recently nearly 400 people gathered at a local lutheran charge in wilmer, minnesota, to talk about climate change . wilmer is not a big city, so when this many people gather in one place, you know it's a big deal . they're concerned about climate change and the marked increase in severe weather occurren
you were in china that you suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange, in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me that even though we're being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all, is that an accurate statement? and if so, explain that if you would. >> no, not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. it was reporting to that effect. there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i will say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not th that same level of deployment is necessary. it's all, i stated, was sort of a fact based on the rationale of deployment itself. >> do you think the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time ever you? >> no. >> thank
disarmament. the reaganites in the defense department were horrified by this and put a stop to it but reagan didn't go all the way with reaganism when he had a chance to end the cold war, especially the nuclear threats. so it's a hard-core republican belief. if you remember the pup pup prime -- republican primaries of 2012, it was not that long ago there were eight or ten republican candidates in simi valley for a debate at the reagan library and every one of them said reagan set the example how maring be strong, reagan did with the soviet union and we should do it today in iran, we should do it -- we were right toy trite in iraq. america should use its power to achieve its spend destroy its enemies. i worked in the cold war and in the middle east. you have 29% of the american people agree with that today. >> richard, do you want to say something? you're leaning forward. >> no. >> okay. we want to take questions from the audience if anybody has a question, and i think there's a microphone somewhere that someone is going to bring up. why don't we start right up here on the aisle, blue shirt.
government is increasingly held in such low regard by the american people. but for the left the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose today is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. but negativity on the right, to my mind, makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative that liberals are for things, and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative even just implicitly, we concede the debate before that debate even begins. and yet too many of us, elected conservatives especially, do it anyway. we take the bait. a liberal proposes an idea, we explain why it won't work, and we think we've won the debate at that moment. but even if we do, we reinforce at ivat i'm talking about; winning battles while we're losing the war at every step. this must be frustrating to the scholars of the heritage foundation who work every day producing new ideas, ideas about what conservatives can be for. but it should be even more frustrating to the conservatives around the country that we as elected conservatives were, in fact, elected to
was when former secretary of defense perry went to pyongyang in the spring of 999, and i was with him on that mission. one of the things on the table there was a very sharp set of choice that is we laid out for the north koreans. we presented two paths for north korea to travel down. one of them was the path of engagement and cooperation and dialogue and denuclearization, and the other part we summed up, essentially, by saying you don't want to go there. but bill perry made it very clear what that other path might entail for north korea. so it seems to me that if and when -- and i hope it's when rather than if -- we get back to some sort of a negotiation with the north koreans, it's going to be absolutely critical for us to sharpen north korea's choices, to make it as clear as possible the dangers that they're running by their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capability and the fact that the united states has not yet by any means exhausted the policy options that are open to us including covert activities, including efforts to destabilize north korea, including at the
-chair the board for kids in the defense. the issue is to provide legal counsel to children who are going through immigration removal process but have been separated from their parents, precisely the individuals the refer to. and as you mentioned, there has been an increase in this number in recent years. we are making heroic efforts across the country to the help of over 160 volunteer law firms, companies, law schools. over 5,200 lawyers. now volunteering their time to provide legal representation. as you point out, we have had clients as young as two years old. and a child who is two years old who does not have a lawyer and is not have a parent is basically defenseless when it comes to an incredibly important legal proceeding. and the bill before you does some very important focused things to help address this, as you pointed out. mandates the attorney-general said there can be legal counsel appointed. irresponsibility the work on this which makes perfect sense given that responsibility when need to continue to recruit more volunteer lawyers and are committed to doing that. at the passage of th
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20